waiting for an explanation.....

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by mulpwr
Did you see the hat thrown down by the back judge when the receiver went out of bounds. That first and foremost has to be considered BEFORE the review. It is of material and why it was called an illegal touch.

Did he even have position when his leg was over the goaline? Its irrevelant because the right call was made,regardless if you liked it or not.

The review had nothing to do with the receiver going out of bounds. They knew that beforehand.

The back judge was right there when BJ went out of bounds and the explanation was given by Tripplette. If he HADN'T went out of bounds or the hat not been thrown,then more then likely the catch would have been called a TD. If they would have overruled the TD AFTER calling it a TD because they saw BJ go out of bounds,then i can see a complaint for sure.

The replay wasn't needed to decide if the receiver went out of bounds. The bad part is the officials didn't seem to understand the rules at first or don't properly explain it to us,the fans.

Rolling out by a QB near the end zone gives the CB/Receiver the ability to block,so no pass interferance can be called on either party....i didn't know that beforehand.

But all of this was immaterial. If they didn't call a penalty on the initial play, which they did not, by rule, there was no way they could call a penalty at all, as the review was not about the penalty.

There's no doubt they made the wrong call initially, that a penalty SHOULD have been called. It wasn't. You can't go back and decide since you were wrong, since you saw you were wrong, anc change it, just because.

Same thing we saw in the San Fran game. A TD was called for San Fran. We challenged saying he didn't get both feet in, for indeed he had not. The replay upheld this, but made it clear the ref SHOULD have called a forceout for a TD. Everyone knew the ref had blown the call (as this past weekend) but there was nothing he could do about. That wasn't under review.

Bottom line...the refs blew this call initially, cheated to 'right the wrong', and sucked all day long. On both sides of the ball.

 

[Fiasco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by mulpwr
Did you see the hat thrown down by the back judge when the receiver went out of bounds. That first and foremost has to be considered BEFORE the review. It is of material and why it was called an illegal touch.

Did he even have position when his leg was over the goaline? Its irrevelant because the right call was made,regardless if you liked it or not.

The review had nothing to do with the receiver going out of bounds. They knew that beforehand.

The back judge was right there when BJ went out of bounds and the explanation was given by Tripplette. If he HADN'T went out of bounds or the hat not been thrown,then more then likely the catch would have been called a TD. If they would have overruled the TD AFTER calling it a TD because they saw BJ go out of bounds,then i can see a complaint for sure.

The replay wasn't needed to decide if the receiver went out of bounds. The bad part is the officials didn't seem to understand the rules at first or don't properly explain it to us,the fans.

Rolling out by a QB near the end zone gives the CB/Receiver the ability to block,so no pass interferance can be called on either party....i didn't know that beforehand.

You are missing the point completely.

Lets say that Marshall Faulk runs 10 yards for a first down. The official gives a poor spot and Martz challenges the spot of the ball.

After reviewing the play, the referee comes out and says that the ball was spotted incorrectly then proceeds to throw a flag because he saw holding on one of the Rams offensive lineman.

During a challenge a referee can only review the exact aspect of the play that is being challenged. In the case of BJ's touchdown the challenge was the spot of the ball. The referee can not, by rule make a judgement about anything else that happened during that play except the spot of the ball.

Theres a good reason why referees can't do this. On every play in the NFL a penalty of some sort happens somewhere on the field. If a ref could throw a penalty flag after a review every significant play of a game would be challenged.

 

[Redmark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Fiasco
You are missing the point completely.

Lets say that Marshall Faulk runs 10 yards for a first down. The official gives a poor spot and Martz challenges the spot of the ball.

After reviewing the play, the referee comes out and says that the ball was spotted incorrectly then proceeds to throw a flag because he saw holding on one of the Rams offensive lineman.

During a challenge a referee can only review the exact aspect of the play that is being challenged. In the case of BJ's touchdown the challenge was the spot of the ball. The referee can not, by rule make a judgement about anything else that happened during that play except the spot of the ball.

Theres a good reason why referees can't do this. On every play in the NFL a penalty of some sort happens somewhere on the field. If a ref could throw a penalty flag after a review every significant play of a game would be challenged.

I understand this and agree but let me see if I understand the play under review.

As mulpwr says, since a hat was thrown indicating the official saw the receiver go out of bounds than the legality of the touching had to be established when the player caught the ball. Because the QB rolled out and could have run it was ruled illegal even though that was not the exact aspect of the play being challenged. But if it is obvious in the replay that he cannot touch the ball, how can they rule it a TD?

Look at it this way. What if they had ruled the play a TD and Pittsburg challenged the call saying that the QB was rolling and the receiver can't come back on the field and be the first to touch the ball? They would have called the same penalty wouldn't they?

 

[TXCardinalsFan]

Well, either way, the guy representing the commisioner's office said that the ref made the right decision on NFL Total Access. So now the point is moot and the game is over. I was pissed off when the ref made his decision, but it appears that there will no apology from the front office. But I certainly hope that this opens a can of worms and that instant replay gets scrapped.

So, with all that the Cards can't mull over that one call. They lost the game is the third quarter and there is no getting around that. What we need to do is start locking our sights on Cleveland. That team put up 20 points on KC. So I think we have our work cut out for us. But as usual, I will be glued to DirecTv with jersey on willing a victory come Sunday.

 

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Redmark
I understand this and agree but let me see if I understand the play under review.

As mulpwr says, since a hat was thrown indicating the official saw the receiver go out of bounds than the legality of the touching had to be established when the player caught the ball. Because the QB rolled out and could have run it was ruled illegal even though that was not the exact aspect of the play being challenged. But if it is obvious in the replay that he cannot touch the ball, how can they rule it a TD?

Look at it this way. What if they had ruled the play a TD and Pittsburg challenged the call saying that the QB was rolling and the receiver can't come back on the field and be the first to touch the ball? They would have called the same penalty wouldn't they?

I don't know if it's legal to challenge for a penalty like that but, in your second scenario, then yes, they would have called the penalty, if that's a viable challenge.

The problem is, they did NOT call a penalty on the initial play. It was RULED to be a legal play. The referee cannot, therefore, throw a flag on a review for something else. It's illegal. It's cheating. That wasn't the aspect of the play under review. As someone said, there's a penalty (mainly holding) on every play, for God's sake. You can find penalties on many reviews, but you aren't allowed to call them.

So, no, in your first scenario, you are incorrect. The ONLY aspect they were supposed to review was whether the ball was caught in the end zone. They decided it was, and that should have been the end of it. TD Cards. Instead, they tried to right a wrong with another wrong and ended up not with a right, but two idiotic wrongs. Typical poor officiating.

 

[Chaz]

The example is a bad one. Holding is not a reviewable play.

A better question might be if the were reviewing a spot and determined it was an incomplete pass or if they were reviewing a fumble or a spot and determined the receiver went out of bounds before catching the ball would be a more accurate analogy.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by SirChaz
The example is a bad one. Holding is not a reviewable play.

A better question might be if the were reviewing a spot and determined it was an incomplete pass or if they were reviewing a fumble or a spot and determined the receiver went out of bounds before catching the ball would be a more accurate analogy.

Granted. And I think the only logical conclusion for changing a call you could get out of THAT scenario is if it was being bobbled. They wouldn't call it incomplete, per se, but it would be enough for them to say there was no evidence to overturn the spot.

What we had instead was something completely immaterial to the call being reviewed. Going out of bounds and coming back in has nothing at all to do with the spot of the ball when it is received. Nothing. Therefore, there was no reason to do what they did. They were wrong.

 

[Fiasco]

Stout is exactly right.

The play was ruled a completed pass at the 1 yard line. The ref can not say that the pass is incomplete because of a penalty upon a review of the spot of the ball.

 

[Redmark]

Mac doesn't seem to care much about this

casablanca started this thread asking for an official interpretation and apparently the ruling was the officials were correct. Despite all the excellent arguments to the contrary we're never going to get the points back. I guess Mac realizes this when he said:

"I know I’ll be asked about some of the officiating calls that were made, but it shouldn’t come down to that at all. That was an occurrence in the ball game, it was not something that tipped the ball game. "

 

[Stout]

Well, in that, Mac is right. HE knows he can do nothing about it, and that the penalties alone were not the difference in this game.

Well, as a fan, though I do realize all of this too, I've been arguing because there are still those who *wrongly* have been defending the officials' call. It was wrong, it was cheating to cover up for a previous mistake, and it shouldn't have happened. There is no disputing this.

But if Mac harps on this point, it's going to go badly for him. Kudos to him for taking this screw-job and carrying on.

 

[Fiasco]

My big problem with this particular call is the precedent it sets.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Fiasco
You are missing the point completely.

Lets say that Marshall Faulk runs 10 yards for a first down. The official gives a poor spot and Martz challenges the spot of the ball.

After reviewing the play, the referee comes out and says that the ball was spotted incorrectly then proceeds to throw a flag because he saw holding on one of the Rams offensive lineman.

During a challenge a referee can only review the exact aspect of the play that is being challenged. In the case of BJ's touchdown the challenge was the spot of the ball. The referee can not, by rule make a judgement about anything else that happened during that play except the spot of the ball.

Theres a good reason why referees can't do this. On every play in the NFL a penalty of some sort happens somewhere on the field. If a ref could throw a penalty flag after a review every significant play of a game would be challenged.

Lets change this a little, lets say Faulk gains 10 yards and fumbles, recovered by the opossing team. Martz then challenges the fumble, the ref goes under the hood and then comes out and says, it was indeed a fumble, but Faulf stepped out of bounds 3 yards earlier so we are going to spot the ball 3 yards back and give the back to St Louis. I say you can't do that, you have to look at the fumble and the fumble only, even though both items are reviewable, you only review what the coach asked to be reviewed.

 

[Fiasco]

It's a big can of worms they just opened.

Lets say your scenerio happens except Martz challenges the spot of the ball instead of the fumble. Can the ref then say Faulk stepped out of bounds before the fumble?

 

[Billy Flynt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Mike Rogers
Lets change this a little, lets say Faulk gains 10 yards and fumbles, recovered by the opossing team. Martz then challenges the fumble, the ref goes under the hood and then comes out and says, it was indeed a fumble, but Faulf stepped out of bounds 3 yards earlier so we are going to spot the ball 3 yards back and give the back to St Louis. I say you can't do that, you have to look at the fumble and the fumble only, even though both items are reviewable, you only review what the coach asked to be reviewed.

The director of officiating was interviewed on the new NFL Channel. He said that once a play is reviewed, no matter what the reason (coach's challenge, booth challenge, etc.) the entire play is subject to review. Now I hope that that is the way the rule is written and the way that the owners intended the rule. At any rate, it is a very slippery slope. Are they watching the entire play every time there is a review? Of course not! This means they should be watching every play from the snap.

Since it is evident that BJ stepped out of bounds and that the official there did call him out, they can make the ruling that it was an illegal touch. Had the call not been made by the official, it makes you wonder if he would have watched that much of the play. My guess is no.

If illegal touching is reviewable, would an illegal snap be reviewable too? I'm really starting to believe it needs to be all or nothing.

 

[Stout]

Yeah, I saw that thing at the NFL channel. Wow, have they been misleading the fans, or what! It's absolutely baloney.

As someone mentioned, they likely don't watch most of these plays from the snap all the way to the end, so what kind of a double-standard does that start? And I'm not talking just about our play. I'm talking about everything.

The more I see and hear about replay, the more I'm with Billick. Or at least it needs to be changed.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by casablanca
The director of officiating was interviewed on the new NFL Channel. He said that once a play is reviewed, no matter what the reason (coach's challenge, booth challenge, etc.) the entire play is subject to review. Now I hope that that is the way the rule is written and the way that the owners intended the rule. At any rate, it is a very slippery slope. Are they watching the entire play every time there is a review? Of course not! This means they should be watching every play from the snap.

Since it is evident that BJ stepped out of bounds and that the official there did call him out, they can make the ruling that it was an illegal touch. Had the call not been made by the official, it makes you wonder if he would have watched that much of the play. My guess is no.

If illegal touching is reviewable, would an illegal snap be reviewable too? I'm really starting to believe it needs to be all or nothing.

That would all be well and good, but didn't the official that threw his hat down make a "JUDGEMENT" call that he was pushed out? If so a judgement call is not reviewable.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Originally posted by Fiasco
It's a big can of worms they just opened.

Lets say your scenerio happens except Martz challenges the spot of the ball instead of the fumble. Can the ref then say Faulk stepped out of bounds before the fumble?

????? Like you said it's a big can of worms they just opened!!!!

 

[Billy Flynt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Mike Rogers
That would all be well and good, but didn't the official that threw his hat down make a "JUDGEMENT" call that he was pushed out? If so a judgement call is not reviewable.

The judgment was that he was pushed, the fact of the matter was that he was out of bounds. The hat being thrown is statement of that fact.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
That officatiing team should be fired!

When the replay showed that BJ was inside the goal line, in order to save face, they came up with the bogus call that, since BJ was pushed out of the end zone (it was more liked "mugged"), he couldn't come in to catch the ball.

All well and good, but the dude who was pushing him out of the end zone should have been flagged for either interference or an illegal chuck. (At the very least, he was interfering with the receiver's ability to run his route - more than 5 yards down the field).

Well said!